Executive Summary
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates challenge a mercury‑control patent owned by MES, Inc., arguing the PTAB, not the MDL, should decide the validity issues and that the Director’s review request should be denied.
Related Cases
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Patent No. 9,330,593 B2 in the OLED circuitry space. The Board found sufficient showing for institution based on Petitioner's analysis of Tobita as prior art under §102(b).
Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million plus royalties, granting a non‑exclusive license and dismissing all related litigation.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al.vsNeapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on a stipulation. The petition highlights the actual trial date, discovery investment, and identical parties as reasons for discretionary denial.
Apple Inc.vsSmith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Martyn, and Cho. The Board adopted a specific definition for POSITA, requiring computer science expertise with professional GUI experience.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.